Sunday, May 31, 2009

Answering Poilievre's apologists

I have rejected a number of comments on my last blog posting by people claiming that Poilievre is not a racist and just has the best interests of the natives and other people of colour in mind. I rejected these comments for one simple reason; to wit; you can’t argue with racists. Anyone who doesn’t understand that Poilievre’s comments about Aboriginal people, or his use of the phrase ‘tar baby’ are rooted in bigotry, is so wrapped up in our society of racism that they simply are beneath discourse. When a public official implies that Aboriginal people are lazy and don’t embrace or understand the principles of hard work, this is racism. There is no way around it. And if you don’t understand this then no degree of rational discourse will save you from your own bigoted spirit. Similarly, if you are unable to understand that the use of the phrase ‘tar baby’ in connection with a piece of policy that is compared in metaphorical terms with an unwanted pregnancy is profoundly racists, then you are so beyond understanding the basic issues of racism in this country that you cannot be redeemed through simple discourse. Instead, I suggest that people in this position could only begin to understand the racial issues at stake here through experiences that significantly expand their ability to experience empathy.

It is very simple; Mr. Poilievre is either a racists or he is so wildly ignorant of and insensitive to racial issues that he has no business being in a position of public trust.

He cannot claim to be using the phrase right and to have never heard it in the same breath, which is what he is doing in response to Paul Dewar in the house.

Pierre is a liar, but he knows no one in NC will vote for anyone else.

He could have erected a burning cross on his front lawn and the local Conservatives (like the yahoos of the "Barrahven Independent' or Pollievre Pravda, I like to call it) would have explain how he was tryin g to make the streets safe by providing extra light...